Granted, I don't think that just anyone could make an effective Batman. That brings us right back to the whole George Clooney / Val Kilmer fiasco (which of course makes me want to punch Joel Schumacher again). But I missed that whole paragraph referring to the Joker, so I'll amend.

I think in recently rereading "The Killing Joke" and "Arkham Asylum", I would still find it hard to cast Pitt as the Joker. Do I think he could pull it off? Sure... see "12 Monkeys" and "Fight Club" for a bit of the loopyness and derangement needed for the role. Where I think he falls short, and this is mostly due to the roles he has been in, is the viciousness (even under the surface) necessary in any incarnation of the character. That's something that Nicholson has made a career out of ("YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!"), and Ledger shocked everyone and their mother with (hence, his well-deserved, I-would-have-crapped-myself-as-a-fully-grown-man-if-he-didn't-win-it, posthumous Oscar award)... but I seem to be missing that "I will <blank> kill you with a spork right now" stare and grin coming out of Brad Pitt. Could be wrong, and I've been surprised before (see Ledger, Heath), so feel free to disagree.

I think both characters have too much backstory and too much history to just toss one aside to a dime-a-dozen actor.. and I'll list a few terrible choices, sticking to Batman alone for simplicity's sake:

Keanu Reeves: Neo, sure... he's supposed to be lost, dazed, and confused. And you're a liar if by the third movie you didn't want to slap him.

Ben Affleck: If Daredevil didn't tell you that this guy is fighting hard for the title of "World's Most Awful Actor In Absolutely Everything Not Affiliated With Matt Damon", then maybe a few of his megahits might remind you. Like "Jersey Girl". Or "Gigli". Or "Paycheck". Or "Changing Lanes" Not enough? How about "Pearl Harbor". Every single movie this guy makes has me questioning if losing the sense of sight is a bad idea.

David Hasselhoff: Because Batman should eat cheeseburgers from the bathroom floor. I bet Frank Miller has that in his next graphic novel.

Pauly Shore: Do I need to give you a reason? Which actually leads me to...

Brendan Fraser: Why is this guy ever cast? He's like a Keanu Reeves prequel. Only it's real life.

Eddie Murphy: Because the only thing more ridiculous than that (besides liking any Affleck film not named "Good Will Hunting") is..

^^^ Hahahahahaahaha! Excellent work, Logan, excellent work, and I completely agree that Brad Pitt seems to be missing that dangerous, insane spark that is vital to the Joker's characterisation. As for you, Duckman, I'll admit you've put up a pretty strong case, Brad Pitt has tried to fashion himself as a character actor. However, in many of the films you've listed, his main purpose is still to appeal to the fairer party: you can't deny the sexy aloofness in Ocean's 11, the mischievous twinkle and those abs in Thelma and Louise (and Fight Club, for that matter), the hair in Meet Joe Black and the untouchably dangerous aristocratic charm in Interview With the Vampire. Still, I don't think the Joker should return as yes, that version was Heath Ledger's creation, and it would be disrespectful for someone else to fill his shoes. Remember how disappointing it was (intially at least) when George Lazenby replaced Sean Connery, Rhona Mitra replaced Kate Beckinsale, Lena Heady replaced Linda Hamilton, Michael Gambon replaced Richard Harris and anyone who tried replaced Jim Carrey? Same thing would hppen with a "replacement Joker" in my opinion.

As for alternate Batmans, I think Christian Bale is doing most solid work and I'm very content for him to stay in Batman's cape and cowl. However, I have contemplated Keanu Reeves as Batman, and a local movie magazine did choose him when the writing staff tried to cast Justice League. Speaking of which, half-rate teen idol/model Armie Hammer (look him up) has been cast as Batman in the stuck-in-development-hell Justice League live-action movie.

Anyway, how about we contemplate who could play Robin? I know Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale have flatly stated that Robin will not appear as long as they are attached to the films, but I think Robin lends a dynamic edge and forces the famously anti-social Batman to be more accomodating. I nominate Josh Hutcherson, the bonafide angsty teenager of today's movies (see Journey to the Centre of the Earth, Zathura and Bridge to Teribithia). I think an unknown gymnast/chid actor would be good in the role. I think someone teenaged or in their early-twenties at best should play Robin, it was just laughable seeing the grown-up Chris O'Donnell ham it up as an absolute child opposite Val Kilmer and George Clooney.

Chris O'Donnell just seems like he should be best friends with the two Coreys. 'Nuff said.

I'm just against Robin in the films for one reason only. It distracts from the dynamic of Batman, his personal life as Bruce Wayne, and the villian (which includes the relationship dynamic between the three arcs). Shoving Robin into the mix works well in the comics as a segue, or even relative to the arc, but that can be drawn out for infinitely more time and with more depth and complexity than a film can provide. Sticking the character into the films serves to limit the time and depth of each individual character, as it becomes a muddy, rushed mess. Personally, I think it's just a poor idea overall.

To give a brief example of what I mean, think of the X-Men films. Other than Wolverine (who really shouldn't have been the focal point of any film other than the current one), there is no character depth explored fully. No shaping, no full backstory, just some vague references and minuscule flashbacks that (other than the people into comics.. you know, geeks, nerds, fanboys, and whatever other words we could use..) serve the character nothing, as if we should just accept their being and existence as the whole story, when it isn't and shouldn't be.

Even Nicholson's Joker had a backstory. Ledger's Joker had no backstory... and that was the point. The whole idea was that they knew nothing. The premise is brilliant, ties into the comics well, and leaves the viewer practically begging for more.

To reply... Jedd, I don't think of Pitt as a character actor in the same way I don't think of Johnny Depp as a character actor, or Edward Norton for that matter. I find myself consistently amazed at the variety of roles that he takes on. Is he a draw for the ladies? Absolutely... but even the most squeamish of girly-girls still loved SE7EN... "Aww... What's in the box?!?!???" Fight Club is a movie that women are severely divided on (those that saw it are also divided over the violence versus the topless men, then there's the "I won't see it because it's about fighting" crowd, all of which obviously have no clue what the movie is actually about).

That actually leads me to thinking more about Keanu Reeves. I still say no thanks. I'd rather watch Al Pacino (who has become a character actor by the very definition) play Batman. I'd rather watch Peter Griffin play Batman. And speaking of animated series... I think the perfect choice for a Joker in any subsequent films would actually be Mark Hamill. Think about it... the makeup would hide his age (face it, he's got a few wrinkles). He's got the best (wow, my original word got changed to "gorram") Joker laugh ever (beats Nicholson by a mile), and you could play off the changes due to his captivity (Arkham Asylum would come back into the picture, thus contributing to the "rehab" efforts and changes). Maybe he disfigured himself a little further, maybe he got into the medicine cabinet... but I think Hamill could follow up Ledger with some justice to the style of character needed in the Nolan films. He's got the voice, he's got the mean streak (like just about killing Vader before he decides not to give in to the hate), and considering the costume and makeup work, I think the differences would be negligible.

Oh... and that new movie with Ben Affleck (and Russell "The Cellphone" Crowe)... don't see it. Fair warning. It will be terrible.

I don't think they will or should even think about replacing Ledger, for two reasons. One is what Jedd mentioned, that replacing an actor in a role almost never works, and the replaced actor is almost never as good as the preceding actor. It's actually funny to think that superhero movies are the primary exception to this rule, although really actors are only replaced because of a different change (i.e., the change from Burton to Schumacher to Nolan). Also considering that the reason the actors changed was to give a different look on the character, it just wouldn't work in this case.The second reason as to why they shouldn't replace Ledger is because of how disrespectful it would really be. Sure, Michael Gambon became Dumbledore after Richard Harris died, but Dumbledore was an essential character in the series, and the Joker isn't. Only two Batman films have had the Joker, and while those were definitely the best of the films, the other films did fine without him.

Oh, and continuing on the subject of actors for villains, I think I've got the perfect choice for Penguin, even though he's never going to happen: Timothy Spall. Don't beleive me? Watch "Sweeney Todd", and you'll see. Sure, he may have sucked as Beadle Bamford, but his performance would have been a perfect Penguin, whether you go by the comics or the Burton film- Disgusting and unsettling, but perfectly menacing. It'd be great.

joecrowaz on Flickr wrote:Flynn you little wussy with a purple robed fairy for an icon,

"Hush" would make a fine film adaptation, if I may bring that sidetrack to the table... there are enough characters in the story to make it work, and it would need to be a bit condensed to make it feature length, but it's a solid story arc.

I still think that having a Joker cameo from a prison/psychiatric facility would keep some continuity within the story arc that Nolan has devised for the rebooted Batman series. Regardless of the direction of the third film, a brief (three minutes tops) cameo appearance of the character (which would absolutely have to be cast perfectly, and with the Ledger incarnation in mind) could spell wonders down the road, give clarity to the vague end scene with the Joker in "The Dark Knight", and set up any future storylines involving the Joker to be addressed appropriately in the future. I'm all for logical continuity, and just having a different Joker wouldn't do it for me without any reasoning behind the difference.

And now that I think of it... Lucius Fox and Alfred play the perfect "down-to-Earth" foils to Batman/Bruce Wayne's tortured self. Robin is just a crap movie subplot. It seems to have worked best in the comics when it was a teenager, and finding one that could flesh out that role without being one of those little teenage heartthrob types is like finding a trans-blue 1x1 round plate in the Pacific during storm season while blind. In other words, it's a no-win situation if you go down that road. Can you tell I'm not a fan?

Robin is a difficult character to bring on screen seriously, mainly because it's hard to get past his perky attitude which just doesn't fit into the Batman films anymore. I think it would be perfect to bring in Robin if the Joker was still a possiblility in the Nolan films. Why? Because it'd be Jason Todd, rather then rooster Grayson. You'd have this bright kid helping Batman, but in the end he dies in the hands of Joker, teaching Batman that he has to work alone and can't let other people be involved. It'd probably work better as a subplot, but I think it might work.

Oh, has anyone found it odd that Leslie Thompson has not yet been brought to any of the Batman films? Sure, she's not an essential character, but she's important to Bruce's life just as much as Alfred is. Just thought I'd mention that...

As far as adapting the graphic novels, I think that right now we have the perfect set-up for a movie adaptation of "The Dark Knight Returns". Think about it, you have a good setup for why Batman has retired from crime , you have all the negative views of him perfectly set up, and even the name fits as a sequel. Unfortunately, you have three major problems adapting it. First of all is that Joker is essential to a good portion of the story, and as you know my feelings on a replaced Joker, I just don't think it'd work to cut him out entirely. Second is that the story has so many subplots that it'd be difficult to decide which ones to keep and which ones to trim. You have the war in the background, Superman, Robin's part, the Joker, the Mutant gang and the Children of Batman, and the hunt and controversy of Batman, all of which have their own plot elements that are essential to the overall story. It'd be difficult to trim through. The third reason is that the novel's climax deals with a war against Russia, as it was written while the US and Russia still weren't on the best of terms. Nowadays, of course, it wouldn't really work.

But, who knows, they were able to make Watchmen, maybe they'd be able to make The Dark Knight Returns.

joecrowaz on Flickr wrote:Flynn you little wussy with a purple robed fairy for an icon,

I agree with filming "The Dark Knight Returns"... except for the little fact that Bruce Wayne was a 50 year old retiree at that point. From a continuity standpoint, it doesn't make sense to do it now. A good fit might be more along the lines of Miller's "Batman: Year One", where Batman is more a rogue agent with the cops on his trail as well as the villains. It fits the ending of The Dark Knight, and can play nicely into a lot of different comic angles. I think the hardest part would be coming up with the suitable villain for the film.

I would stay as far away from filming an adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns as possible. To be completely honest, I am nowhere near a fan of most of Frank Miller's work. A grumpy retired Batman pumelling mutant rebels with a female, redheaded bespectacled Robin by his side would sound very far out to the average popcorn-munching audience, who make up the target audience as much or perhaps even more than your average fanboy. I don't think it's wise to adapt graphic novels wholesale, just take the choice parts as inspiration (which was exactly what Batman Begins and The Dark Knight did with great success). Graphic novels tend to carry a lot of baggage story-wise, which requires some background knowledge to get into. Also, being such a rich medium, things getting lost in translation are inevitable. However, my choice for big-screen treatment would be The Long Halloween and Hush, two sweeping, dramatic and exciting story archs.

Jedd, your points reinforce mine a lot. Basically, Robin doesn't work on film because it's a character you can't develop in one film, and dedicating a film to that character is like watching Ben Affleck cry. It's painful, but for all the wrong reasons.

Call me crazy though... I don't see many more villains that Batman has that can withstand good film treatment other than what we've seen. Exhausting them through one-and-done appearances leaves the B-list characters to create a story around, and it just turns potentially good films into Schumacher type expeditions into futility and despair. As in futile trying to enjoy it, and despair that you subjected yourself to such sarlacc pit (thanks, dW).

That is precisely why, even though Heath Ledger has passed and can't reprise his role as Joker, the character should find its way into the next film. The ending leaves the character alive, thus providing continuity any way the screenwriter chooses, and sets up any type of story arc, even a mastermind scheme (which could leave the Joker in a cameo role at the end, masking the actor change) and setting up more integral "detective" type scenes where Batman is more investigative. Think "Batman - Year One"... it's a gritty, street-wise Batman, not chasing the super-villain or arch-nemesis, but literally stopping street crime and common thugs. Even going as far as lacing up his own boots... Sure the costume work of the modern films leaves low-tech out of the equation, but "The Dark Knight" leaves Batman at the crossroads of defending his oath and the public from Gotham's crime, and fending off the GCPD who are now on his tail. Combine those two strong arcs with a mastermind plot formed around a supervillain who isn't named until the latter stages of the film (or even the end, forming a cliffhanger and forcing another sequel) would be quite compelling in my mind, and force you to want to see how Batman and Bruce Wayne can coexist in the world that Batman has both created and driven himself into. It's a great premise on both character development and storyline that has potential. What do you guys think?

Oh... and how can you not like Miller's work? I think he gets the god-like treatment, but I also think that it's well deserved. Think of his work in the period that it was released to the public, instead of how it correlates now. The Dark Knight Returns is actually visionary considering that it's now 23 years old. 1986 is a different time altogether (hell, I was still a kid), but the message and pace and violence and lunacy all still resonate just as strongly. I think the Robin character works well within the pages, and the new and entirely different threat (the Mutants) creates a difference in Batman that the character had previously not engaged in. Side note... the scene of Batman on the stretcher in the BatTank (with Robin, after the Mutant leader beat the heck out of him) and the scene in Knightfall with Batman on the stretcher in the Batcave with Robin and Alfred are meant to mirror each other. The page in Knightfall (after Bane breaks Batman's back) is an homage to Miller's work, and in my mind, rightfully so.

Flynn wrote:Oh, has anyone found it odd that Leslie Thompson has not yet been brought to any of the Batman films? Sure, she's not an essential character, but she's important to Bruce's life just as much as Alfred is. Just thought I'd mention that...

I just thought I'd bring the thread back. Yes, I would absolutely love to see Leslie Thompkins onscreen. Bruce needs at least one more person other than Alfred who can truly understand and feel for him. Also, I think the Bat-family would be interesting to see in live action, though I don't think it's going to happen: the whole team of Robin, Oracle, Nightwing, Batgirl and Huntress working together with Batman...just wow. Anyway, I think Rosemary Harris, who played Aunt May in the Spider-Man films, would be the perfect contender to play a live-action Dr Thompkins.

In the year leading up to TDK, and ultimately it's release, I got kind of burned out on it, what with all the "Geatest movie ever made" nonsense I kept hearing. The film was a great sequel, and will probably change the way comic book films are approached from now on. But in all honesty I think Ledger's death really blew the film sky high. I'm happy it reached the heights of Titanic in terms of box office gross (as contradictory as that may sound coming from someone who couldn't stand all the praise it was getting), but like I said I think Ledger's death played a factor.

As for the other films, I grew up on Burton and Schumacher's Batman films, and I might get hate for it but at the time, Batman and Robin was the best thing ever to me (I was around 8 or 9 at the time mind you). I actually really like all the films, I even got a chance to see Batman Forever in theaters, aswell as TDK two times. I just hope if or when they decide to do a third "Begins" film, that it at least features an early version of the Batwing. Best Batman vehicle ever in my book.

Oh and I won't compare Jokers (Though Nicholson edges Ledger out just barely for me), seeing as they did two completely different takes on the character. They both had their moments.

Flynn wrote:Oh, has anyone found it odd that Leslie Thompson has not yet been brought to any of the Batman films? Sure, she's not an essential character, but she's important to Bruce's life just as much as Alfred is. Just thought I'd mention that...

I just thought I'd bring the thread back. Yes, I would absolutely love to see Leslie Thompkins onscreen. Bruce needs at least one more person other than Alfred who can truly understand and feel for him. Also, I think the Bat-family would be interesting to see in live action, though I don't think it's going to happen: the whole team of Robin, Oracle, Nightwing, Batgirl and Huntress working together with Batman...just wow. Anyway, I think Rosemary Harris, who played Aunt May in the Spider-Man films, would be the perfect contender to play a live-action Dr Thompkins.

But Leslie Thompkins is black. Rosemary Harris is white. The only way to pull that of is to do what they did in Tropic Thunder, and that just looked terrible.

Logan wrote:David Spade: It just wouldn't work unless Chris Farley was Robin. I'd watch that in a minute.

Actually, I'd prefer Chris Farley's Batman to David's Robin, but thats just because of Frank Caliendo. Either way, though, it would be a bajillion times more epic than The Dark Knight (or any other Batman movie) could ever hope to be.

I myself am not much of a Batman aficionado. Heck, I haven't even seen all of the movies. I do know, though, that I loved Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and that I'd love to see more from Nolan and Bale. Having read none of the comics and only seen a handful of animated Batman cartoons (don't recall which one, but they were airing back when I was a teenager which was in the late 90s), I'm not even familiar with all the villains, storylines, etc., but I do know I'd like to see the Riddler at some point. I think he could be portrayed "realistically" in Nolan's universe and the suggestion someone made about Depp playing him just sounded right to me. I also like to think Jim Carey, given a second chance, could also do a great job (we've seen him play "dark" before), but it's doubtful most fans would be willing to forgive him for his first outing.

To be honest, I'm think Nolan should do what he did with the first two films: not listen to whatever other people think and continue with his vision. Patronizing fanboys is not the way to win over the casual viewer the way that TDK did.

The beauty of a LEGO MOC is not the elements that go into it, but the way those elements are put together.